Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Speaking as an atheist, I loved your post.

Just keep in mind that these are "errors" found in the King James version of the Bible so it would be good to do some cross-referencing with the Authorized version etc, before using any of this material in a evolution Vs creation debate.

...However, as far as I know, nobody has ever used this forum as a vehicle for propagating Christianity. Or Hinduism, Buddhism, Bahaism or any other -ism you care to mention.
So does the above rule not apply if somebody comes along and starts promoting an extreme form of Sharia-based Islam?

To the best of my knowledge forum rules do not prohibit the propagation of religious doctrine.

... nor do they prohibit others from challenging such propaganda. That is my point.

Point taken and accepted, but keep in mind that by the same token there are different variations/interpretations of the Quoran in case you didn’t know, and if you add to that the varying levels of debating skill of the person on the defense one starts to realize how difficult it is to prove/disprove anything at all. In my view, Quamer did a very poor job of representing Islam so any hails of victory by some were unnecessary… that’s all.

[Oracle]

This reminds me of an essay we had to do in Religious Studies for "O" level ......

We had to compare the different accounts in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John ... and I remember there were enough differences on Jesus' life and teachings to make the whole story dubious ...

[tessintrnc]

I remember "dissecting" and discussing the miracles of Jesus at school and it was a very interesting debate. I do believe though, that there is indeed something "lost in translation" when it comes to interpreting ancient documents - some of which written in a language no longer used today.

Another example of misunderstandings - this one from the koran and explained by a very learned scholar:

There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.


Perhaps someone should tell the Saudi's !!!

[CopperLine]

Get Real

I don't understand your comment

Just keep in mind that these are "errors" found in the King James version of the Bible so it would be good to do some cross-referencing with the Authorized version

The King James Authorised Version is an authorised version. It was a translation of the bible, largely based first on Wycliffe, and then finally composed by commission of King James I (of England) and VI (of Scotland) and first published, I believe in 1611. Insofar as James I was head of the Church of England it is his authorisation. The Church in Rome did not authorise that version. Hence the necessity of always prefixing the words authorised version with the name of the person or institution doing the authorising.

What is absolutely clear is that there is no definitive version of the bible.

[Get Real!]

Get Real

I don't understand your comment

Just keep in mind that these are "errors" found in the King James version of the Bible so it would be good to do some cross-referencing with the Authorized version

The King James Authorised Version is an authorised version. It was a translation of the bible, largely based first on Wycliffe, and then finally composed by commission of King James I (of England) and VI (of Scotland) and first published, I believe in 1611. Insofar as James I was head of the Church of England it is his authorisation. The Church in Rome did not authorise that version. Hence the necessity of always prefixing the words authorised version with the name of the person or institution doing the authorising.

What is absolutely clear is that there is no definitive version of the bible.

I have an oldish (1930s) bible that calls itself “The Authorized” version and makes no reference whatsoever to King James, but anyway what I should’ve said in that message is… “cross-referenced with other VERSIONS of the bible” …so your observation is very valid. Also, the word “authorized” should’ve been written in inverted commas to avoid any misunderstanding. For the record, a quick search for Bible flavors reveals…

The King James Bible (KJV)
The New International Version (NIV)
The New Revised Standard Version0 (NRSV)
The New American Standard Version (NASV)
The American Standard Version (ASV)

Regards, GR.

[Oracle]

Get Real

I don't understand your comment

Just keep in mind that these are "errors" found in the King James version of the Bible so it would be good to do some cross-referencing with the Authorized version

The King James Authorised Version is an authorised version. It was a translation of the bible, largely based first on Wycliffe, and then finally composed by commission of King James I (of England) and VI (of Scotland) and first published, I believe in 1611. Insofar as James I was head of the Church of England it is his authorisation. The Church in Rome did not authorise that version. Hence the necessity of always prefixing the words authorised version with the name of the person or institution doing the authorising.

What is absolutely clear is that there is no definitive version of the bible.

I have an oldish (1930s) bible that calls itself “The Authorized” version and makes no reference whatsoever to King James, but anyway what I should’ve said in that message is… “cross-referenced with other VERSIONS of the bible” …so your observation is very valid. Also, the word “authorized” should’ve been written in inverted commas to avoid any misunderstanding. For the record, a quick search for Bible flavors reveals…

The King James Bible (KJV)
The New International Version (NIV)
The New Revised Standard Version0 (NRSV)
The New American Standard Version (NASV)
The American Standard Version (ASV)

Regards, GR.

How many of these discrepancies occur in the Greek versions?
(especially of the New Testament quotes) .....